"Harry " wrote in message
m...
On 7/30/10 6:53 PM, Steve B wrote:
As usual, you speak from your ass. She's not a public figure.

Lemme get this straight. She's a government employee of a large agency,
and
she's speaking in a public forum. Everything she says is recorded or
written down. All her actions and directives are a matter of public
record.

Help me understand what you do not understand about her being a public
figure.

Or maybe you are just plain stupid. From your eloquent post, I would
guess
the latter to be the case.

Steve

visit my blog at http://cabgbypasssurgery.com




You obviously know nothing about the term "public figure" in
defamation lawsuits.

Perhaps you can get someone to explain this to you:

Public Figure is a term usually used in the context of libel and
defamation actions where the standards of proof are higher if the party
claiming defamation is a public figure and therefore has to prove
defamatory statements were made with actual malice. Harte-Hanks
Communications v. Connaughton (1989) 491 U.S. 657, 666-668.

The "public figure" issue is not cut and dried. To begin with, a fairly
high threshold of public activity is necessary to elevate a person to
public figure status, Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co. (1989) 48 Cal.3d
711, 745, and, as to those who are not pervasively involved in public
affairs, they must have "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular
public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues
involved" to be considered a "limited purpose" public figure. Gertz v.
Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) 418 U.S. 323, 345.

Ms. Sherrod was not a public figure when the video tape that was "edited"
was made. Further, there's little doubt Breitbart had "actual malice" in
mind when he defamed Ms. Sherrod.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p117.htm


Now, Steve, you can slip back into your stupor.

Wow... nice citations. I didn't bother, because as someone once said...
"Never explain-- your friends do not need it, and your enemies
will not believe it anyway."